January 2019: When media fact-checkers finally jumped the shark

The 48-hour build-up to President Trump’s first Oval Office address to the nation was chock-full of breathless hand-wringing in the media over whether they should air the speech in the first place.

“How can we air a speech that will be full of lies and distortions?” they asked each other on endless panel shows. “Maybe we should tape-delay the address so we can contextualize his statements and provide a thorough fact-check,” they insultingly suggested.

This is the Trump era. Fact-checking has moved into the mainstream. CNN’s 22-year-old production assistants are now responsible for running lower-third graphics designed to snark the president’s remarks so their dwindling audience can feel the smugness that comes with knowing they’ve received the revealed truth thereby forgoing any need to hear alternate views or challenge a belief.

But this week, something changed. This week, the media fact-checkers jumped the shark.

Within the first minute of Mr. Trump’s address, The Washington Post posted a political argument under the “Fact-Check” heading. Given that the post is time-stamped 9:02 p.m., the Post had to have been pre-written and published to time with the speech that had yet-to-be delivered.

“There is no new crisis at the border,” the “Live Fact Check” claimed. Politico issued a similar “not a crisis” “fact-check.”

Those are not fact-checks. The idea that an elected official is lying by calling a situation he is trying to resolve a “crisis” goes well beyond fact-checking and enters the realm of making a partisan political argument. Like other regurgitations of Democrat talking points, this is certainly a legitimate form of opinion journalism, but is not even remotely a dispassionate research project to verify facts.

Furthermore, the Post fact-check contradicted an article posted in their own publication just three days earlier, in which the Post’s own journalists described the border situation as a “humanitarian crisis.”

CBS News reportedly deleted a fact check that “corrected” Mr. Trump’s assertion that 1 in 3 women are sexually assaulted during the hazardous trek from Central America to the U.S. border. CBS claimed “Between 60 percent and 80 percent of female migrants traveling through Mexico are raped along the way, Amnesty International estimates.” Their fact check actually helped the president’s argument by correcting him for under-reporting the hazards of crossing the border illegally. The fact check was deleted with no explanation.

The number of false or misleading fact checks goes on and on and I suggest you read the great work of clear-headed journalist Mollie Hemingway who has cataloged a plethora of such examples.

However, none of these biased opinion pieces disguised as public-service fact checks would signal the tipping point for the form on their own. No, the “jump the shark” moment happened this week, because even liberal journalists seem to have had enough.

The Associated Press dared to fact check a claim from the Democrats’ response that Mr. Trump was responsible for the partial government shutdown.

“Democrats put the blame for the shutdown on Trump. But it takes two to tango. Trump’s demand for $5.7 billion for his border wall is one reason for the budget impasse. The Democrats refusal to approve the money is another,” the AP accurately wrote.

Democrats on Twitter were not pleased.

The AP tweet was “ratioed” as social media denizens say. This means that despite 8,000 retweets (largely interpreted as agreement) the tweet garnered over 24,000 comments (largely interpreted as arguments and disputes with the AP’s analysis).

None other than MSNBC’s Chris Hayes chimed in with this: “The fact-checking genre is fine and useful in certain circumstances but it is *woefully* under-theorized as an undertaking, which leads it into all kinds of weird, shoddy, and dubious territory.”

We agree, Mr. Hayes. But, where have you been?

The fact checkers with their infantile “Pinocchios” and “pants on fire” judgments have long fallen into the trap of arguing opinions, contexts, stipulations and, often, outright political hackery.

Another Washington Post fact check from the president’s speech as an example. “266,000 aliens arrested in the past two years: The number is right but misleading” was the Post’s headline.

That’s the problem in a nutshell. If your fact check consists of “this is true, but ” you are no longer checking a fact. You are engaged in an argument, and therefore, you’re guilty of misleading your readers — which, we thought, was the opposite of your job description.

• Larry O’Connor writes about politics and the media for The Washington Times and can be heard weekday afternoons on WMAL radio in Washington. Follow Larry on Twitter @LarryOConnor.

The only REAL crisis—an imperative situation demanding immediate official response–=IS the “humanitarian” border crisis where children and familiies are at risk of being harmed (and in at least 2 child cases,dying). The “we need a wall” alleged crisis is “manufactured,” not real and not deserving of a 3-5 year project built on sand that, by the time it’s finished, might be instrumental at keeping people wanting to ESCAPE America inside the country instead! And if anyone thinks this is a $5bil. project (which COULD lead to or be part of a FINANCIAL crisis)….

‘If your fact check consists of “this is true, but ” you are no longer checking a fact.’
and also,
“You are engaged in an argument, and therefore, you’re guilty of misleading your readers.”

The Democrats, when they are not just making “facts” up on the fly, consistently throw out facts that are true but deceptive. It’s almost always necessary to say “yes, but …” whenever a Democrat speaks. Gun deaths come to mind. Most of all gun deaths are suicides not school shootings, but the Democrats intentionally conflate suicides with homicides, inflating the numbers to make it seem like there is an army of armed stalkers waiting in the shadows to kill you and your children.

And although I agree that you do begin engaging in argument when you say, “Yes, but …”, I strongly disagree that you are therefore guilty of misleading your audience. Quite the contrary. When you point out that there are buried assumptions or deceptions associated with some fact you are clarifying points of the discussion and avoiding misconceptions.

I, of course, would not put it past a Democrat to say, “Yes, but …” and then introduce some deception, which I suspect is what the author, Larry O’Connor, meant when he wrote those statements. But as the statements stand, I cannot agree with them.

Recent Comments

"I'm not married to gasoline or coal. Tesla is showing just how capable battery cars can be - Fact. There are indications the Tesla has already killed to American passenger car market. Instead of buying an Impala, people are saving up for a Tesla.
True, the Tesla (representing all electric cars) is only as "emissions free" as the energy source. But..."Comment by DrGadget
Posted in Battery cars pose significant hazards

"If they call a white guy a "racist" then they are about to attack him fiercely.
Their cries of "Racism!" these days are mostly expressions of hostility towards whites.
If you are about to be attacked by hostile anti-Americans or have been under attack, already, then you may wish to defend yourself with any means necessary.
Apologizing is stupid thing to do as..."Comment by A_Reader
Posted in Media attack high school kids for being ‘racist’ in FALSE story

""treat Hispanic voters as political hostages"
This is what I'm saying. There are two possibilities for anyone in this country.
a. Let them live the American Dream
b. Send them packing
The Dems and the complicit RINOs don't want either. They want a captive audience of political hostages, unable to live the American Dream. Basically little more than slaves. This is not America.
The Dems..."Comment by DrGadget
Posted in Navigating the Nancy Pelosi shutdown